HomebrewandBeer.com forum

drsmurto wrote:Perfectly acceptable TL, yes. True to style, no.

Bohemian pilsners such as Budvar and Urquell are still made using a triple decoction.......

As for putting off potential HBers, the fact this is in the grain brewing section means its for the more advanced brewer.

I never made a lager as a kit brewer as i knew it wouldnt be that great, nowhere to hide the twang in a lager, a big fat stout on the other hand......

Just my 2 c
DrSMurto

Perhaps we agree to disagree! If my and any other pils entry at the nationals was dropped because they found out that we hadn't triple decocted the mash, there would be hell to pay! I totally agree that a Budvar or Urquell copy does benefit from a triple decoction. My more general assertion that a perfectly reasonable pilsner can be made with a single step infusion mash still stands....And yes, it becomes degrees of difficulty beyond that to make a "more refined" pils.
And of course, as to whether the final product is "great" is subjective. My first beer (Coopers draught kit and kilo of dextrose) was "great" because it was cheap and made by me! As for taste, well, we can be very forgiving when we start to brew, can't we?!

I suppose my main concern here is making sure that we don't make generalisations that raise the bar beyond the reach of aspiring brewers - I actually put off making my first ag beer because when I read about it, the whole thing looked way too complicated. It wasn't until I found a website that stepped through what to do and once I actually did a mash that I realised that ag is actually quite straightforward in principle and it's we, the brewer who eventually add "advanced' techniques such a decoction or water chemistry etc to more closely emulate a particular beer. And that's fine, of course - but to then complete the circle by saying that you must do these things for a whole style of beer is, IMO, wrong.

Cheers Kev - "to do it properly" makes much more sense because you're suggesting methods that will put the brewers final result much closer to the real thing, as opposed to a blanket statement...

Cheers,
TL

Fair call TL. I still make pilsners without decoctions but they are normally step mashed which gets back to the point of this thread i believe

A 4 step method, 52, 64, 71, 78 is my general methodology. Boiling water to get the temp jumps or depending on style, a decoction each step.

At the end of the day every brewer has his/her own level of how complicated you can make things. More important than decoctions in something as light as a pilsner is water quality, hitting mash temps spot on, using fresh hops for flavour/aroma, a good yeast at the appropriate temps and time to condition.

Re-reading past BYO issues and discovered the recipe for a pilsner including 0.88kg of carapils in a 19L batch. WTF?

I tend to keep things far simpler, 100% pils malt (sometimes sub in up to 20% light munich) and noble hops.

Not sure the point of this reply....... hmmmm, i think i need more coffee.

All this discussion about step mashing has made me think about making a lager "properly"...

See you havent scared anyone off...

I also agree in having no heavy metals in beers... dont want to die of lead poisoning... just joking kev...

I personally can't wait to do my first decoction mash.

that type of brewing is part of the appeal to me.

PaulSteele wrote:I personally can't wait to do my first decoction mash.

that type of brewing is part of the appeal to me.

Absolutely! And decoction mashing is fun! (Yep, roll in the men in white suits with the straightjacket!)

Doc, I agree, why load up the grainbill with a blank flavourless mouthfiller (carapils) when a carefully managed mash will do a much better job, flavourwise.

Cheers,
TL